Two new studies: Gun crime has dropped dramatically over last 20 years — and most Americans have no idea

posted at 4:41 pm on May 7, 2013 by Allahpundit

Firearm-related homicides declined 39 percent and nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69 percent from 1993 to 2011, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011, and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.

For both fatal and nonfatal firearm victimizations, the majority of the decline occurred during the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002. The number of firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006 and then declined through 2011. Nonfatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004 before fluctuating in the mid- to late 2000s…

In 2004 (the most recent year of data available), among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of the offense, fewer than two percent bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show. About 10 percent of state prison inmates said they purchased it from a retail store or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.

Bear that two percent figure in mind the next time Obama or Biden starts wheezing about the gun-show loophole. Now, from Pew, the kicker:

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades…

Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower.

You can’t appreciate the magnitude of the decline without seeing it in graph form. Click here and make your way through Pew’s interactive table. In virtually every demographic, gun homicides and violent firearm crime are either lower or way, way lower than they were 20 years ago — and this despite the fact that, as Charles Cooke notes, gun laws were liberalized during that period. I remember stern warnings from the media in 2004 that if the assault-weapons ban were allowed to lapse, all the gains that had been made in reducing gun violence in the late 90s and early 00s would disappear. Like I say: Have a look at Pew’s table. In fact, per the BJS numbers above, gun homicides actually rose during the second half of the AWB’s 10-year tenure before declining again a few years after the ban lapsed. After wading through the BJS data, J.D. Tuccille of Reason dug up another interesting data point:

“[M]ilitary-style semiautomatic or fully automatic” firearms, of the sort targeted by Sen. Feinstein at the federal level, and by new laws in Colorado, Connecticut and New York, make up a whopping 3.2 percent of the weapons possessed by federal inmates, and 2 percent of the weapons possessed by state inmates, at the time of their offense.

And yet, per Pew, just 12 percent of the public has any clue about the dramatic decline in gun crime. On the contrary, a clear majority thinks it’s gone up — despite dutiful news reports whenever the FBI releases its crime data, despite endless (and justified) coverage of the “broken windows” theory and NYC’s celebrated turnaround in crime under Giuliani and Bill Bratton. Partly that might be due to a general default assumption among the public that social problems tend to get worse, not better. Society seems to get coarser all the time, ergo there must be more violence. Wrong, although you can understand how that conclusion is drawn. It’s probably also partly due to the saturation coverage of horrendous mass shootings. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Newtown — it feels like gun violence is exploding, especially at schools, even though it’s much reduced nationwide. (Per Tuccille, the BJS data shows fewer homicides at schools annually now than 20 years ago.) And of course, partly the false perception is owing to the sense of crisis/opportunity inculcated by Obama and his media allies after Sandy Hook to push their broader gun-control agenda even though the measures they proposed would have done zip to stop Adam Lanza. If you’re a low-information voter watching Obama’s various pressers over the last five months, why wouldn’t you assume that gun crime is spiralling ever upward? Rhetorically, at least, he’s spent more time on gun control than he has on any other issue — more than unemployment, North Korea and Syria, immigration, you name it. The problem must be getting worse to justify making it his tippy top public priority; otherwise, one might be forced to conclude that he’s demagoging it simply as a handy bludgeon to try to use against the GOP in the midterms. And that can’t be true. Can it?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Here’s how Coburn’s idea works. A prospective buyer logs into a website run by the FBI’s NICS division and enters the information you would put on a standard ATF form 4473. The NICS database then does a background check, and returns either a “proceed” or “denied” result along with a unique code. That code, combined with the buyer’s name, can be used by the seller to verify the authenticity of the “proceed” from the background check.
Once the buyer has his background check completed, he can purchase a firearm within 30 days.

Before Coburn’s proposal, no “universal” background check system even came close to the level of privacy protection and convenience that this one offers. And that’s why gun control advocates don’t like it. They want their records, and they want their national gun registry.

Make no mistake: a universal gun registry is what they really want. “Universal” background checks are just the means to the end for them, the stepping stone in that direction. And Coburn’s proposal gives the public what they want while denying the gun control advocates their registry. And it’s pissing them off.

The problem must be getting worse to justify making it his tippy top public priority; otherwise, one might be forced to conclude that he’s demagoging it simply as a handy bludgeon to try to use against the GOP in the midterms.

He needs an enemy to progress against the US. Guns is a handy one. Notice how the “War on Women” has been non-existent since the start of the Gosnell trial. Whenever a verdict is reached, it’ll be back.

Here’s how Coburn’s idea works. A prospective buyer logs into a website run by the FBI’s NICS division and enters the information you would put on a standard ATF form 4473. The NICS database then does a background check, and returns either a “proceed” or “denied” result along with a unique code. That code, combined with the buyer’s name, can be used by the seller to verify the authenticity of the “proceed” from the background check.
Once the buyer has his background check completed, he can purchase a firearm within 30 days.

Before Coburn’s proposal, no “universal” background check system even came close to the level of privacy protection and convenience that this one offers. And that’s why gun control advocates don’t like it. They want their records, and they want their national gun registry.

This system infringes on my privacy and is an offense. the idea that it somehow precludes the feral government amassing a database is ridiculous.

F-Off Coburn. No universal background checks, period. What we already have is an offense to the Constitution.

According to Frekonmics it’s inner city abortion. Also we have been buying lots of guns and CC laws have become commonplace except in peaceful Chicago, Detroit, NC, ATL, LA and other democrat dominated hell holes.

Television and movies have gotten much, much more violent over the years which gives the impression that there is more violence. And the news media can’t wait to sensationalize each child abduction or shooting. But that had always happened, really. People today think that the wild west was one big gun battle. The reality is that the fight out at the OK Corral was a big deal at the time because those things just didn’t happen all that much.

I constantly see their “police SUVs” all over Philadelphia. It offends me. Truly. And the fact that they say “POLICE” in big letters on the SUV and have that idiotic “federal protective police” label on the sides make me sick. The US has never had any federal police force and should never have one. It is insane. I cannot believe that this cr@p is allowed to go on. I feel like I stepped into some sh!thole Eurotrash joke of a nation – though I guess living in the American Socialist Superstate is supposed to give that exact sort of sick feeling to any sane person.

So how does Pew end up with a 49% decline in gun homicides since 1993 while DOJ ends up with a 39% decline? I wonder what different sources they used. I would also like to know the estimate of how many guns were privately owned in 1993 vs. the present. It has to be tens of millions more, which would make the case for gun control even weaker.

Just because we know about this do not assumes other should naturally know this as well. Conservatives and libertarians must crush the leftest in the MSM (buy them out or ruin them), the public education system (with vouchers and charter schools), and the entertainment industry (Hollywood and the music industry).

This is a informational war and right now we are losing because we don’t communicate our views well at all.

So how does Pew end up with a 49% decline in gun homicides since 1993 while DOJ ends up with a 39% decline? I wonder what different sources they used. I would also like to know the estimate of how many guns were privately owned in 1993 vs. the present. It has to be tens of millions more, which would make the case for gun control even weaker.

Mark1971 on May 7, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Maybe DOJ used prosecutions/convictions whereas the other data may include unsolved/unprosecuted cases?

otherwise, one might be forced to conclude that he’s demagoging it simply as a handy bludgeon to try to use against the GOP in the midterms. And that can’t be true. Can it?

Or the SCOAMF is using it as a distraction from the Most Corrupt Administration EVER bankrolling the Too Big Too Fail banks with $ 83 billion/year in government subsidies (i.e. their profits and his camaign contributors billions of dollars and bonuses) while unemployment numbers, the GDP number and Obamacare disaster are completely ignored by the Pavlovian response of the Kneepad Media to the “gun control bell”?

So how does Pew end up with a 49% decline in gun homicides since 1993 while DOJ ends up with a 39% decline? I wonder what different sources they used. I would also like to know the estimate of how many guns were privately owned in 1993 vs. the present. It has to be tens of millions more, which would make the case for gun control even weaker.

Mark1971 on May 7, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Maybe DOJ used prosecutions/convictions whereas the other data may include unsolved/unprosecuted cases?

weaselyone on May 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Could it possibly be because DOJ for the past 4 1/2 years has been unethically run by someone who hates guns?

Here’s how Coburn’s idea works. A prospective buyer logs into a website run by the FBI’s NICS division and enters the information you would put on a standard ATF form 4473. The NICS database then does a background check, and returns either a “proceed” or “denied” result along with a unique code. That code, combined with the buyer’s name, can be used by the seller to verify the authenticity of the “proceed” from the background check.
Once the buyer has his background check completed, he can purchase a firearm within 30 days.

Before Coburn’s proposal, no “universal” background check system even came close to the level of privacy protection and convenience that this one offers. And that’s why gun control advocates don’t like it. They want their records, and they want their national gun registry.

Make no mistake: a universal gun registry is what they really want. “Universal” background checks are just the means to the end for them, the stepping stone in that direction. And Coburn’s proposal gives the public what they want while denying the gun control advocates their registry. And it’s pissing them off.

Colbyjack on May 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

I’ve never seen a writeup of what exactly is wrong with our present system of background checks for gun purchases. I’ve done it many times, the first time about eighteen years ago and it seemed to work just fine. Why is it the existing system not ‘universal’?

Has the public ever been polled with the question: “are you aware we already have a system for background checks for the purchase of guns, and have for X years?”

And I would bet that the bulk of the decrease in national gun violence occurred in states that passed concealed carry laws. Thugs don’t like a level playing field, and gun-free zones are still victim-rich zones.

According to data from the FBI’s uniform crime reports, California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011 with 1,220 — which makes up 68 percent of all murders in the state that year and equates to 3.25 murders per 100,000 people.

The irony of such a grisly distinction is evident when you look at which state was named the state with the strongest gun control laws in 2011 by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. You guessed it — it was California.

Um, I’m not sure about other states, but that time frame coincides with the change in Texas law allowing for concealed carry….And allowed for others who did not meet the need at the time to carry a firearm.

I saw no mention of that in either study.

cozmo on May 7, 2013 at 4:49 PM

excellent catch cozmo. October 1991 was the Luby’s massacre in Killeen. Spring of 1995 we passed the must issue CCL law. Removed the barriers to carry.

I was very familiar with the carry laws before Texas changed them. I met two of the three requirements to be able to carry, and was angry that it was a defense from prosecution instead of a true ability to carry.

There is such a thing as jerk cops, and I had to deal with a few of them during that period.

[Charlie Rangel] went on: “We’re talking about millions of kids dying — being shot down by assault weapons, were talking about handguns easier in the inner cities, to get these guns in the inner cities, than to get computers. This is not just a political issue, it’s a moral issue and so when we condemn the NRA we should not ignore the fact that a lot of people that have taken moral positions have been solid on this big one.”

[Charlie Rangel] went on: “We’re talking about millions of kids dying — being shot down by assault weapons, were talking about handguns easier in the inner cities, to get these guns in the inner cities, than to get computers. This is not just a political issue, it’s a moral issue and so when we condemn the NRA we should not ignore the fact that a lot of people that have taken moral positions have been solid on this big one.”

Many watch the alphabet media and parrot what they hear and see, never for a moment checking back at the sources of their statements. There are those that talk about magazines holding illegal amounts of ammo for revolvers, chem trails with internet sites showing the spraying over seven miles up. Google (list of government agencies) read’em all, it’s so bad that you will think it’s fake. And while you’re at it google (number of staff for Congress) this too is beyond belief.

It “feels” that you are gonna get shot for stepping out of your house thus we must pass laws that will help criminals retain the power and make law abiding citizens victims.

It “feels” that the health care system is bad, thus we need to pass a whole new entitlement to make that bad system happen.

It “feels” that hot summer weather is hot thus we must pass new laws to cut our standard of living making everyone poorer.

It “feels” that gays and women are horribly oppressed and have no special rights nowhere found in the Constitution thus we need to pass laws that curtail someone else’s rights to not “feel” guilty anymore.

Oh good lord…if you are in favor of a national registry of all guns, you are as liberal as all Democrats. Give it up.

ladyingray on May 7, 2013 at 7:36 PM

???
So, tactically, I can see the objection to a registry as a useful defensive line against gun grabbing, but otherwise I don’t really see much harm in it. If it ever comes down to “the government will use it to come after gun owners”, we’re all pretty much so screwed it won’t make a difference.

So, tactically, I can see the objection to a registry as a useful defensive line against gun grabbing, but otherwise I don’t really see much harm in it. If it ever comes down to “the government will use it to come after gun owners”, we’re all pretty much so screwed it won’t make a difference.

So, tactically, I can see the objection to a registry as a useful defensive line against gun grabbing, but otherwise I don’t really see much harm in it. If it ever comes down to “the government will use it to come after gun owners”, we’re all pretty much so screwed it won’t make a difference.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:12 PM

OK – try putting on the old thinking cap for a minute.
With the registry they know who has what guns – except for the criminals of course.
Without the registry, they don’t know who to go after.
That’s why every fascist or communist dictatorship in human history started with a national gun registry, THEN went for the total confiscation – Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and more.
Also the UK. They implemented a registry first, and that was followd by a total confiscation a few years ago.
Do you see a connection yet?

OK – try putting on the old thinking cap for a minute.
With the registry they know who has what guns – except for the criminals of course.
Without the registry, they don’t know who to go after.
That’s why every fascist or communist dictatorship in human history started with a national gun registry, THEN went for the total confiscation – Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and more.
Also the UK. They implemented a registry first, and that was followd by a total confiscation a few years ago.
Do you see a connection yet?

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 8:20 PM

And, if they are going to come after you, they will do it with or without a registry. The absence of a registry would be little more than an inconvenience to the dictator — and might even be an convenience, as that could give them an excuse to crack down even harder. Either way, we’ve already lost at that point, so it’s basically irrelevant.

And, if they are going to come after you, they will do it with or without a registry. The absence of a registry would be little more than an inconvenience to the dictator — and might even be an convenience, as that could give them an excuse to crack down even harder. Either way, we’ve already lost at that point, so it’s basically irrelevant.

And, if they are going to come after you, they will do it with or without a registry. The absence of a registry would be little more than an inconvenience to the dictator — and might even be an convenience, as that could give them an excuse to crack down even harder. Either way, we’ve already lost at that point, so it’s basically irrelevant.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:28 PM

How do they know who to go after? How would they know if I have guns to consfiscate?
Without a registry, they would have to search every house in the country with no probable cause, in violation of the 4th amendment as well as the 2nd, and that would attract far too much attention – and resistance.

Now, if you’re trying to tap dance around the idea of the Dems declaring martial law, as they nearly / essentially did in Watertown, MA, then perhaps you have a point. But if they tried that in a red state (vs very blue Taxachusetts), people would be putting up a fight.

Who’s trolling? I read through the comments twice and don’t see a single libtard attacking the data.

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2013 at 8:40 PM

That’s why I said “not quite”.
I’m not really sure whether Count to 10 is a troll or not.
So far just seems to have a misguided or non-thinking opinion on gun registry – so I’m trying to stay calm and logical so far.

Stats can be stats for many reason…ownership is up because their is more discretionary income to spend on our hobbies.
That’s what the baby boomers have done their whole life…drive the economy. Also an increase in RV sales coincides with a decrease in crime, so criminals are taking a vacation now?
No, it’s because an aging population commits fewer crimes…like I stated above, an over weight, aging criminal can’t crawl through a window of a house…the “drive” is gone, they just want to retire.
For the next 20 years, crime will drop, and hospital/medical costs will rise.
Larger homes will go on the market as we downsize, guns, scrap booking, etc, will increase in popularity.

We have driven the economy, and have driven marketing of products since we were born…and driven the social scene, you think the “60′s” were people over 30? You think the sexual revolution was people over 40?

And now we are “tired” finishing up our work, and yes, that includes criminals.

And yes, that means more conservative ideas…and higher medical costs.

Reading that an increase in guns have caused a drop in crime…means that an increase in RV sales has decreased crime also, increase in retirement, increase in medical care, increase in the number of grandchildren…

According to Frekonmics it’s inner city abortion. Also we have been buying lots of guns and CC laws have become commonplace except in peaceful Chicago, Detroit, NC, ATL, LA and other democrat dominated hell holes.